Previous determinations

Discussed whether the prefabricated unit is a vehicle, and whether it falls within the definition of a building under section 8 (1) (a) of the Building Act. Also discussed whether the relocation of the unit constituted building work and could be subject to a notice to fix.

Discussed whether the authority was legally entitled to place conditions on a building consent, particularly regarding a “quality assurance plan” in respect of potential timber remediation.

Discussed as title and whether a comparison to the wharenui (marae buildings) exemption is appropriate. Also provides a general framework for modifications or waivers under section 67 of the Act, and methodology for deciding whether it is “reasonable” to grant a modification, for example, by reviewing the extent and possible consequence of the non-compliance with a specific performance clause, or reviewing for consistency with the purpose and principles of the Building Act.

Discussed issuing a code compliance certificate for a building consent where the as-built construction differs from that consented, or where there is conflicting or insufficient detail in the consent, and the importance of considering whether the completed building work complies with the Building Code. Also discussed amending the consent to include the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.

Discussed as title and whether a comparison to the wharenui (marae buildings) exemption is appropriate. Also provides a general framework for modifications or waivers under section 67 of the Act, and methodology for deciding whether it is “reasonable” to grant a modification, for example, by reviewing the extent and possible consequence of the non-compliance with a specific performance clause, or reviewing for consistency with the purpose and principles of the Building Act.

Discussed the nature and complexity of building work and the relative competencies of those carrying out the work in relation to whether an exemption for building consent should be granted under Schedule 1(2), and the need for independent quality assurance systems and checks against the Building Code.

Discussed whether the application for amendment to consent contained accurate and adequate information to demonstrate compliance with B1 Structure, B2 Durability and E2 External Moisture of the Building Code as an alternative solution.

Discussed issues relating to performance of building elements, including veneer walls, deck balustrades and deck overflow, exposed cedar rafter extensions and outriggers for compliance with B1 Structure, B2 Durability, E1 Surface Water and E2 External Moisture of the Building Code.

Discussed whether adequate provision was proposed to protect the building work from inundation and whether periodic flooding would affect building elements in relation to Clauses B1 and B2 of the Building Code.

Discussed whether the stucco wall cladding as installed complies with Clause B2 and E2 of the Building Code. Also discussed whether a modification of durability provisions is appropriate.